volkris @volkris@qoto.org
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
I think a good way to think of it is like email.
It's one thing for you to say that you do or you don't want to see any emails from some particular company, Walmart or the DMV, or whoever. You can mark it as spam, and you can work with your email client to sort out what is spam and what is important and all of that.
But it takes it to an entirely different level if whoever operates your email server decides for themselves that you don't get any of the messages from some particular domain.
Same thing here. It's one thing if you get to choose whether, say, Facebook content shows up for you, but entirely different if the person operating your instance makes that decision for you and blocks it for you so you don't even have the choice.
Let's say that you are an Amazon subscriber and get useful emails from Amazon. It would really stink if your email server administrator up and decided to block all email from Amazon, even the stuff that you actually really needed to see.
That's not the technical description I was looking for.
I understand that it's your goals, but how do you expect to get there? What would the protocol look like? What would signaling look like in order to accomplish private transactions that couldn't be tracked?
You say they failed to implement privacy protections, but I'm asking specifically how those protections might have worked.
There may have been very good reasons not to include them, after all.
Honestly, the who situation had become such a mess, especially with the NC SC ruling late in the game, that such a vague conclusion was almost hard to avoid.
I'm with Thomas. This had become such a mess that it was no longer a solid vehicle for addressing the question. SCOTUS should have punted to avoid this sort of outcome.
I always promote the idea that we should be empowering users to shape their own experiences as they prefer, so #Federation should always be the default.
Let users block instances if they want, but I'd rather keep admins out of the position of dictating what users can and can't see.
That extends to #Meta as well.
If they want to provide a lot of new content to us, then great! If you or I don't want to see that content, also great, let us make that decision and block at the user level.
Otherwise, a lot of people sick of having algorithms set their experience will be on #Fediverse where someone else will be setting their experience.
@josephramoney@mastodon.online
That's simply not true, as nowhere in Moore v Harper was there a legislature insisting on such a right.
Heck, the Court's own opinion emphasized this, that the plaintiffs weren't putting such an argument forward.
Yes, a ton of sensational articles have been written saying otherwise, but when you read the actual opinion, it debunks such claims pretty easily.
I mean technically, what exact feature would be added to get where you want to go?
I mean, don't overlook the simple fact that we drive and own cars because they actually do make our lives better.
We don't take on that expense just to do it.
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy of big evil manufacturers. Sometimes people do things because they are legitimately the best for those people, and the manufacturers serve to support the things that make our lives better.
What kind of privacy protections would you have had them include?
But for those of us who do use Bitcoin as currency, it's a real value to us.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss minority interests by focusing on stats. Those are real people behind the numbers.
So much written about the #SCOTUS ruling on the independent state legislature theory is sensationalized way beyond recognition.
This case had absolutely nothing to do with legislatures throwing out or overruling votes.
It was purely focused on the prescription of "The Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, which wouldn't include a legislature deciding to throw out an election that abided by the prescription.
It's just an example of how reporting on things like the Supreme Court is so misleading, so apparently intent on clickbait rather than real education.
As always, there is no substitute for actually going to the source to see what it says.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf
Well that's not true.
If you read the current court's opinions they have precedents at the core of most of their arguments. It's precedent after precedent in their conclusions.
As for 6-3, the reason it wasn't 9-0 is because three justices pointed out that there wasn't a live controversy that could be addressed:
"In short, this case is over, and petitioners won. The trial court’s original final judgment in favor of petitioners, affirmed by the State Supreme Court in Harper III, represents “the final determination of the rights of the parties” in this case. [...] As a result, petitioners’ alternative Elections Clause defense to those claims no longer requires decision; the merits of that defense simply have no bearing on the judgment between the parties in this action. That is the definition of mootness for an issue."
Well, yes, really. It did happen. You seem surprised by that, which really should be a sign that you don't really understand the argument and why it was so concrete.
In the end it had the support of both the plain text and history of law. That's the reason it was not laughed right out of court, because there was something to it.
I mean, it's not surprising to people who follow the Court more closely.
I honestly believe that very often any person who is surprised by a Supreme Court decision needs to reevaluate where they are getting their news, since apparently their news source is misleading them as to how the court is operating.
Ha, I would take it a little bit farther and point out that ActivityPub not only fails to safeguard privacy but it actively broadcasts these messages to other people.
It's not even about a wall. It's about yelling and hoping that only the right people hear it.
Wow, no, that is a very off base way of describing what happened.
No, the Supreme Court did not decide against ending US democracy. That was not on the table at all.
In fact, in a way it went the opposite direction, as the court agreed to see judicial branches overrule democratically elected representative branches.
But yeah, it was definitely not a ruling against ending US democracy.
Meh, these days pardons are also viewed as a way to escape unfounded criminal prosecution.
So it wouldn't necessarily be that they knew they had done something criminal. It would be that they are afraid they would be targeted unfairly or politically for prosecution.
To be clear, I was referring to the state court role in overriding the democratically elected legislature. SCOTUS was recognizing that role.
But yep, this takes away the power of the people to elect legislators to manage these things.
Why in the world should the SCOTUS be representative of the nation's demographics?
It's is emphatically not a representative body; it is there to be a check on the representative branch.
Yes, representation is paramount. In the representative branch of government. That's why the federal government was designed that way.
When someone is pointing out that a rule would lead to a consequence that doesn't seem like a good one, it's at least worth considering updating the rule to preclude that outcome.
Here and in other places.
Like I said, I do hear people arguing for that position based on pure interpretation, even without advocacy, even while being critical of it.
On a slightly different topic, I find it funny how people are complaining about giving more control to the democratic branch, celebrating that the judicial branch is to override the representatives of the people.
The story isn't so black and white.
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
volkris's choices:
